It took an incredible run from Martinez and a best-case scenario with the rotation last year just to sneak into the playoffs by one game. I don't expect that they'll be able to go 12-7 against the Giants again next year, much less have a winning record against every team in the division.

6 games up on the Rockies and 7 on the Brewers. Losing the WC game (Rockies) is still making the playoffs.

It took an incredible run from Martinez and a best-case scenario with the rotation last year just to sneak into the playoffs by one game. I don't expect that they'll be able to go 12-7 against the Giants again next year, much less have a winning record against every team in the division.

6 games up on the Rockies and 7 on the Brewers. Losing the WC game (Rockies) is still making the playoffs.

That detail doesn't diminish from the broader point. We've seen this cycle before. Unless you believe the dbax are poised for a run of consecutive playoff appearances? Let's not forget, we've had two presidential elections since a team not named the Dodgers won the NL West. Quite frankly, I'm not excited for another 12yrs under this FrontOffice like the last 12yrs they've produced.

The sad fact is this FO only excels at conjuring scapegoats to distract attention from their own inadequacies. If it isn't an inconvenient training location, it's players that aren't recovering from catastrophic leg injuries quick enough or a stadium that's too big.

It doesn't take a giant payroll to consistently compete. But it does take savvy and fortitude.

It took an incredible run from Martinez and a best-case scenario with the rotation last year just to sneak into the playoffs by one game. I don't expect that they'll be able to go 12-7 against the Giants again next year, much less have a winning record against every team in the division.

6 games up on the Rockies and 7 on the Brewers. Losing the WC game (Rockies) is still making the playoffs.

That detail doesn't diminish from the broader point. We've seen this cycle before. Unless you believe the dbax are poised for a run of consecutive playoff appearances? Let's not forget, we've had two presidential elections since a team not named the Dodgers won the NL West. Quite frankly, I'm not excited for another 12yrs under this FrontOffice like the last 12yrs they've produced.

Successes: Won 24 more games than they did in 2016, and won the wild card game to reach the NLDS for the first time since 2011. A rotation that began the season with Zack Greinke in decline and four question marks behind him ended up being the best in the National League, with Robbie Ray emerging as something like an ace. J.D. Martinez was the best trade deadline rental since ... CC Sabathia in 2008? Randy Johnson in 1998?

Disappointments: Trailed in all but three innings of the NLDS, a preview of what's probably to come for the Diamondbacks -- nice seasons stomped on by their $250 million payroll division rivals.

And of course they signed the new deal with FSAZ, which while probably increasing slowly, certainly saw their TV revenue increase from 31M before the new deal went into effect in 2016, to at least 40-45M per year in the early years of the new deal.

The propaganda that the team "can't afford" to have a more competitive salary structure is even more exposed as a falsehood.

Keep in mind that the purchase price in 2004 when principle ownership changed hands was 238 M. As of April 2017 Forbes estimated Franchise value at 1.150 Billion. So the value of the franchise has increased 900M.

Revenue in 2016 was 253 M, and operating income was over 47 M, (Earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization.)

So they could have afforded to go at least 10M-20M higher in payroll last year, and likely this year as well. I'm not saying they should plunge the franchise into massive debt to try to win now. Far from it. But clearly they have more room to increase payroll and their competitiveness, if that were a priority.

other data points, please do click through to help see the picture more clearly.

A) gate receipts have not increased, fluctuating between 40-45M over the last 7 years.

B) Overall revenue however has climbed every year since 2009 increasing from 172M in 2009 to 253 M in 2016.

So even though gate receipts have not increased, gate receipts as percentage of revenue has decreased from roughly 1/4 to 1/6.

This is thanks to MLBAM and other league wide, equally shared revenue streams.

C) Despite this large increase , player expenses* have remained largely static since 2008 (108M) to 2016 (111M), with a dip in 2011 (86M) and a bump in 2014. (125M)

*Note player expenses generally higher than the payroll numbers we often see published, as includes things like Health Insurance, or other misc. items.

Just keep all this in mind as they continue to have a self imposed salary cap in the 105M-110M vicinity.

Doesn't add up for us fans hoping to see the most competitive team possible on the field. But it's adding up to massive profits for ownership, both on annual income and especially in franchise value, that much is clear.

Last edited by shoewizard on Fri Jan 12, 2018 5:08 pm, edited 2 times in total.

I think the decline of gate receipts as a proportion of team revenue is telling. The actual in-stadium product is less important than ever, which is why ownership doesn't make winning a priority. Why spend an extra $20 million on payroll when there is zero guarantee that it will result in at least $20 million of additional revenue? They're basically using a less obvious version of the Loria model. If the welfare checks from MLB disappeared, Kendrick would have the team for sale the next day.

And unless that changes, eventually they will become less lucrative, and the welfare contributors will rebel to save their own skins. They need all of the teams to succeed in the mass market place, but there is a limit to what profitable owners will tolerate with their competitors milking the system.

_________________ There's no success like failureAnd failure's no success at all

Lets not misunderstand. The Luxury Tax distributions the D Backs might get are not the dominant factor in the non gate receipts income. It's MLBAM, gear sales, and National TV revenues, which are shared equally, that is driving this. Thats not welfare.

Lets not misunderstand. The Luxury Tax distributions the D Backs might get are not the dominant factor in the non gate receipts income. It's MLBAM, gear sales, and National TV revenues, which are shared equally, that is driving this. Thats not welfare.

Those income streams are designed as equal disbursements so the smaller markets keep their mouths shut about the structural financial disparities. Teams like the D-backs don't "deserve" an equal cut of gear sales or national TV revenues based on the amount of sales they drive. MLBAM being split equally makes a certain amount of sense because it was started with equal contributions from all owners. The current owners of the Dodgers and Yankees did absolutely nothing to grow the populations of Los Angeles and New York City or build the baseball fanbases in those cities, but the CBA allows them to parlay their local media markets into an ongoing competitive advantage. Greinke's 2016 salary was something like 13% of Arizona's revenue that year and would've only been ~7% of L.A.'s. The Yankees haven't had a losing record since 1992. The last time "they" lost 100 games was in 1912 when they were called the Highlanders.

I think it's absolutely fair to look at those central fund checks as welfare. If not for the free money, 2/3 of the owners would probably band together to demand a more level playing field. MLB is a cartel that disproportionately benefits the people at the top - it's just smart enough to make sure that the people at the bottom are satisfied enough not to upset the apple cart.

Lets not misunderstand. The Luxury Tax distributions the D Backs might get are not the dominant factor in the non gate receipts income. It's MLBAM, gear sales, and National TV revenues, which are shared equally, that is driving this. Thats not welfare.

Those income streams are designed as equal disbursements so the smaller markets keep their mouths shut about the structural financial disparities. Teams like the D-backs don't "deserve" an equal cut of gear sales or national TV revenues based on the amount of sales they drive. MLBAM being split equally makes a certain amount of sense because it was started with equal contributions from all owners. The current owners of the Dodgers and Yankees did absolutely nothing to grow the populations of Los Angeles and New York City or build the baseball fanbases in those cities, but the CBA allows them to parlay their local media markets into an ongoing competitive advantage. Greinke's 2016 salary was something like 13% of Arizona's revenue that year and would've only been ~7% of L.A.'s. The Yankees haven't had a losing record since 1992. The last time "they" lost 100 games was in 1912 when they were called the Highlanders.

I think it's absolutely fair to look at those central fund checks as welfare. If not for the free money, 2/3 of the owners would probably band together to demand a more level playing field. MLB is a cartel that disproportionately benefits the people at the top - it's just smart enough to make sure that the people at the bottom are satisfied enough not to upset the apple cart.

You don't have a league without the teams from smaller markets. It's not welfare because in order to have a viable league in the first place, you need to have at least a semblance of competitive balance. If you don't share equally what is designated as "league revenues", you don't have a league. Period.

You don't have a league without the teams from smaller markets. It's not welfare because in order to have a viable league in the first place, you need to have at least a semblance of competitive balance. If you don't share equally what is designated as "league revenues", you don't have a league. Period.

Revenue sharing has only been around since the mid-90s.

If it wasn't clear, I don't think revenue sharing or other competitive balance measures go far enough. The current system doesn't create anything close to a level playing field between franchises. In fact, it creates perverse incentives for people like Kendrick and Loria where their smartest move is to punch below their weight class on payroll from a purely fiscal perspective. This system exists to make sure that the Bostons and Chicagos are in the playoffs most of the time, first and foremost. It accomplishes that goal by paying off the owners of the smaller markets.

The Yankees can spend $200 million on payroll because their market has enough headroom to provide additional revenue for the team. That's not the case for teams like the D-backs. The D-backs could win 110 games and the World Series every season for the next five years and they still wouldn't pull in as much revenue as the Yankees. This advantage is even more entrenched with all of the long-term television contracts.

Very seldom has there been true competitive balance in baseball history. There's always been the Yankees and Dodgers on one end, and teams like the Athletics, Senators and Phillies on the other.

Btw, was looking at attendance records throughout baseball history. In 1956 the Yankees averaged 19,000 fans a game (second to the Braves), the Cubs 9,000 (next to last). Even in the 60s, the 64 Yankees averaged 16,000, and 8 teams averaged less than 10,000. Attendance did not really start to climb until the late 70s.

Btw, was looking at attendance records throughout baseball history. In 1956 the Yankees averaged 19,000 fans a game (second to the Braves), the Cubs 9,000 (next to last). Even in the 60s, the 64 Yankees averaged 16,000, and 8 teams averaged less than 10,000. Attendance did not really start to climb until the late 70s.

Shift to more night games?

I only remember from the mid-'80's, but I recall stadiums still being relatively empty until two things happened: Camden Yards and the ballpark "renaissance", and the McGwire/Sosa/HR barrage. Until that point, attendance figures were sparse, ticket prices were low, and you could responsibly attend as many games as you wanted to. But the same $12 seats at Fenway in 1993 are now $142, season ticket price for a pair of good tickets went from $2k to $23k. Rising prices are understandable and that same seat 25yrs prior was probably $2, but it still feels like attending live sports events absorbs a much greater share of the discretionary budget now than it used to. Combine that with the rapidly improving and cost-effective home viewing experience, inconvenient start times, and deteriorating live product, and it appears as though attendance figures across most sports are on a structural descent.

_________________"It's about how hard you can get hit and keep moving forward. How much you can take and keep moving forward. That's how winning is done!"- Rocky Balboa on the 2017 Arizona Diamondbacks, those comeback kids

So one thing is obvious. He needs to be far more limited in how many righties he is allowed to face. Basically if they use him a strict loogy and flip those percentages of batters faced, he could help and not hurt as much. But thats easier said than done. Best case is they get his left handed batters faced to around 50-55%.

If Lovullo lets him face Right Handed Batters more often than 50% of the time, I'm going to bitching quite a bit.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 2 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum